Richard Dawkins defends "mild pedophi...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#41 Sep 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Pedophilia is wrong because it cause unnecessary suffering to children. How hard was that?
s.
So, pedophilia is the best example that you can come up with. Yet Dick Dawkins, one of your own high priests, disagrees with you, as indicated in the topic of this post.
So you have no objective basis of morality...just one atheist disagreeing with another.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#42 Sep 19, 2013
The philosophical consequences of a belief in evolution can be encapsulated in the following statement by William B Provine, Ph.D., a renowned historian of science and professor at Cornell University:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."*

*(Provine W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life." Abstract of Prof. William B. Provine's 1998 "Darwin Day address, "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998).

Every once in awhile, an intellectually honest atheist surfaces. NO ULTIMATE FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS EXISTS, according to Dr. Provine.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#43 Sep 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
The philosophical consequences of a belief in evolution can be encapsulated in the following statement by William B Provine, Ph.D., a renowned historian of science and professor at Cornell University:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."*
*(Provine W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life." Abstract of Prof. William B. Provine's 1998 "Darwin Day address, "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998).
Every once in awhile, an intellectually honest atheist surfaces. NO ULTIMATE FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS EXISTS, according to Dr. Provine.
Ah. I got it.

You find a controversial piece by an avowed atheist, who is EXPRESSING HIS OPINION on what HE (not Darwin) deems is a consequence of evolution. Despite the fact that MOST Christians accept the Theory of Evolution -- and do not share Dr. Provine's above OPINION, YOU paint everyone who DOES accept evolution as also sharing the same personal opinion.

Wow.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#44 Sep 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah. I got it.
You find a controversial piece by an avowed atheist, who is EXPRESSING HIS OPINION on what HE (not Darwin) deems is a consequence of evolution. Despite the fact that MOST Christians accept the Theory of Evolution -- and do not share Dr. Provine's above OPINION, YOU paint everyone who DOES accept evolution as also sharing the same personal opinion.
Wow.
That quote was just icing on the cake. I have already demonstrated that athesits have no objective basis for morality. The only attempt to define it thus far has been by Chimney, and his logic has been soundly debunked.

Your statement that "most Christians accept the ToE" is ambiguous and unscholarly. Such statements invariable fail to define "the theory of evolution". Most lay people don't equate the ToE with man evolving from a microbe without any need of intelligent design.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#45 Sep 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah. I got it.
You find a controversial piece by an avowed atheist, who is EXPRESSING HIS OPINION on what HE (not Darwin) deems is a consequence of evolution. Despite the fact that MOST Christians accept the Theory of Evolution -- and do not share Dr. Provine's above OPINION, YOU paint everyone who DOES accept evolution as also sharing the same personal opinion.
Wow.
Dr. Provine's statements are a logical deduction based on evolution. The ToE states that there is no intelligent design. If there is no God, there is no right and wrong by any absolute standards. If man can be reduced to chemicals and nothing more, then every thing that he is or does is the result of his genetic heritage and environment, two factors over which he has no control. Therefore, if he becomes a serial killer, it is not his fault. Human moral agency, according to DArwinism, does not exist.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#46 Sep 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That quote was just icing on the cake. I have already demonstrated that athesits have no objective basis for morality. The only attempt to define it thus far has been by Chimney, and his logic has been soundly debunked.
Your statement that "most Christians accept the ToE" is ambiguous and unscholarly. Such statements invariable fail to define "the theory of evolution". Most lay people don't equate the ToE with man evolving from a microbe without any need of intelligent design.
Support for evolution by religious bodies

Many creationists act as evangelists and their organizations are registered as tax-free religious organizations.[57] Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.[58][59][60]

However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation science in the influential McLean v. Arkansas court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.[61] There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools.[62] In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued statements in support of evolution in 2006.[63] The Clergy Letter Project is a signed statement by 12,808 (as of 28 May 2012) American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).[64] These religious groups include the Catholic Church, as well as various denominations of Protestantism, including the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.[65][66] A figure closer to about 71% is presented by the analysis of Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck.[67]

Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.[68]

61.Jump up ^ McLean v Arkansas, Encyclopedia of Arkansas
62.Jump up ^ Defending the teaching of evolution in public education, Statements from Religious Organizations
63.Jump up ^ Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate, Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21 March 2006
64.Jump up ^ Matsumura 1998,
65.Jump up ^ Christianity, Evolution Not in Conflict, John Richard Schrock, Wichita Eagle May 17, 2005 page 17A
66.Jump up ^ Matsumura 1998, p. 9
67.Jump up ^ The Bible: Is it a True and Accurate Account of Creation?(Part 2): The Position of Major Christian Denominations on Creation and Inerrancy, Walter B. Murfin, David F. Beck, 13 April 1998, hosted on Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education website
68.^ Jump up to: a b Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution, Michael Shermer, Scientific American, October 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#47 Sep 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. Provine's statements are a logical deduction based on evolution.
No, it is not. It is Dr. Provine's personal opinion. Nothing more.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The ToE states that there is no intelligent design.
Really? Where? <hint, no it doesn't>
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If there is no God, there is no right and wrong by any absolute standards.
.....and then you REALLY go off the tracks...
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If man can be reduced to chemicals and nothing more, then every thing that he is or does is the result of his genetic heritage and environment, two factors over which he has no control. Therefore, if he becomes a serial killer, it is not his fault. Human moral agency, according to DArwinism, does not exist.
Yeah. You're a "Doctor".

<snicker>
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#48 Sep 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So after all of your blathering, you finally agreed with me.
You have no objective basis for morality.
Which makes me far more moral than you.

And whaddya mean, "finally"? I've explained this to you dozens of times.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#49 Sep 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, abortion causes unnecessary harm and suffering to humans.
So can the opposite. Besides, Goddidit. Anything done by him is "just, good and moral".
HTS wrote:
Socialism causes unnecessary harm and suffering to humans.
IF misapplied. But since you have a poor grasp of, well, pretty much any concept anyone can think of, what YOU mean by "socialism" is Stalinist/Lenninist atheistic Communism, something which would make Marx himself turn in his grave.
HTS wrote:
Smoking and drinking cause unnecessary harm and suffering to humans.
Like pot, occasionally prescribed by doctors. For the most part, drinking is quite healthy and will cause you MORE harm if you don't. Note that for every example you provide I can provide a counter-example.

I invite you to experiment by not drinking anything for a week. See how that works out for ya.
HTS wrote:
Pornography and gambling cause unnecessary harm and suffering to humans.
It makes people rich.
HTS wrote:
Are these practices all "wrong"?
That's a subjective question, made all the more complicated when individual scenarios are examined.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#50 Sep 19, 2013
Oh gee, this tired old routine again.
HTS wrote:
The philosophical consequences of a belief in evolution can be encapsulated in the following statement by William B Provine, Ph.D., a renowned historian of science and professor at Cornell University
First, his personal philosophical opinions have no bearing on the scientific validity of evolution.
HTS wrote:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist, 2) no life after death exists; 3)
Second, science, including evolution, makes no theological claims. It does not say whether or not there was a "God" behind it or not, or whether or not an afterlife exists.
HTS wrote:
no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists;
Again, science makes no such philosophical claims either. Whether these foundations or 'ultimate' meanings exist are not addressed in any way by science. In short, ALL the exact same things apply equally to gravity, germ theory, or in fact any other science you care to mention.
HTS wrote:
and 5) human free will is nonexistent."*
Again, evolution makes no such claim either way. Provine is assuming that natural forces are purely domino effect in nature, while not taking intelligence (which he may think is an illusion) or quantum phenomena into effect.
HTS wrote:
*(Provine W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life." Abstract of Prof. William B. Provine's 1998 "Darwin Day address, "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998).
Every once in awhile, an intellectually honest atheist surfaces. NO ULTIMATE FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS EXISTS, according to Dr. Provine.
He speaks for himself, and not for science, or even just evolution as a whole. If **I** want to appeal to authority for my positions I can do it myself. I certainly don't need fundies to do it for me. However if the implication is that Provine thinks that a God is required for morality then it speaks more poorly about his own philophical pov than it does others.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51 Sep 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That quote was just icing on the cake. I have already demonstrated that athesits have no objective basis for morality. The only attempt to define it thus far has been by Chimney, and his logic has been soundly debunked.
Bear in mind, you have never debunked anything ever.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
Your statement that "most Christians accept the ToE" is ambiguous and unscholarly. Such statements invariable fail to define "the theory of evolution". Most lay people don't equate the ToE with man evolving from a microbe without any need of intelligent design.
ID is irrelevant. Theological opinions are irrelevant. Your opinions are irrelevant. ToE is what it is. Some Christians accept it. Some don't. Since ToE makes no theological claims there is wiggle room for theists who may like to think that God is ultimately responsible for evolution. You prefer to place limits on the Almighty. Meanwhile science doesn't care about either opinion. The validity of biology is not affected either way. Just as gravity is not affected whether people think that God made it happen or if they think it's purely natural physics with no divine intervention.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#52 Sep 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
Dr. Provine's statements are a logical deduction based on evolution.'
No they aren't.
HTS wrote:
The ToE states that there is no intelligent design.
No it doesn't. If you think otherwise then you can point to the peer-reviewed published paper that explicitly states that evolution means there definitely is no God.

And while you're at it, find the one for gravity as well, since that theory doesn't mention any Gods either. Nor does any other scientific concept.

In short, if evolution is "atheistic" then ALL science is equally "atheistic".
HTS wrote:
If there is no God, there is no right and wrong by any absolute standards.
If there is a God there still aren't. It's all arbitrary anyway.
HTS wrote:
If man can be reduced to chemicals and nothing more, then every thing that he is or does is the result of his genetic heritage and environment, two factors over which he has no control.
Yup, absolutely positively NO control over the environment whatsoever:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/...
HTS wrote:
Therefore, if he becomes a serial killer, it is not his fault.
It depends. It might not be as he might have brain damage. On the other hand he might have a brain that functions fine and just wants to kill people, in which case it IS his fault.
HTS wrote:
Human moral agency, according to DArwinism, does not exist.
Evolution makes no such claims. If this is true of evolution, then it is also true of gravity. However the simple fact is that "morality" is an arbitrary abstract concept invented by humans. And possibly some other animals too.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#53 Sep 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not. It is Dr. Provine's personal opinion. Nothing more.
<quoted text>
Really? Where? <hint, no it doesn't>
I know that HTS is a habitual liar, but really, what does he gain by having the exact same argument using the exact same posts over and over again with the exact same people? It's not as if anything's gonna turn out different.

I tell ya, maybe I should rethink Provine's "we are all robots" claim. Certainly seems to be the way with HTS.

:-/
HTS

Williston, ND

#54 Sep 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bear in mind, you have never debunked anything ever.(shrug)
<quoted text>
ID is irrelevant. Theological opinions are irrelevant. Your opinions are irrelevant. ToE is what it is. Some Christians accept it. Some don't. Since ToE makes no theological claims there is wiggle room for theists who may like to think that God is ultimately responsible for evolution. You prefer to place limits on the Almighty. Meanwhile science doesn't care about either opinion. The validity of biology is not affected either way. Just as gravity is not affected whether people think that God made it happen or if they think it's purely natural physics with no divine intervention.
ToE claims that the whole of nature can be explained by naturalistic cause, ie, NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
That is a theological claim.
You repetitive comparisons of ToE to gravity are idiotic.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#55 Sep 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Brian, pissoff and leave your whining on one thread will ya? No need to make EVERY single thread about gay marriage. If you wanna join the conversation, fine, but deliberately derailing a thread like this is pure trolldom.
What derail? His reasons for defending mild pedophilia are exactly the same as his reasons for defending same sex marriage.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#56 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ToE claims that the whole of nature can be explained by naturalistic cause, ie, NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
That is a theological claim.
You repetitive comparisons of ToE to gravity are idiotic.
"Nature" being describe by "naturalistic cause".

Imagine that.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#57 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think I have any sympathy for those "sick minded priests", you are mistaken. You continually make judgements as to my religious views, and you are always wrong.
The fact remains, atheism cannot claim any objective basis for morality. Their moral code is "whatever feels good to me IS good". That is the morality of Stalin and Mao.
If you think man has no spirituality and is defined solely by genetics and environment, then no one can assume personal responsibility.
If someone is a pedophile, then, according to your religion, he is not responsible for his actions. He is a robot, just as you apparently are.
Yet you rejoice in putting down someone like Dawkins because he was abused as a child. How strangeÖ

You make public statements that indicate a certain religious mind set. This very thread is an example of that mocking bias that you show to anyone not infected with your brand of hatred. Perhaps you are being truthful, perhaps not, but it boils down to any judgements people make about you are based on your public statements. You donít like than then you know what you can do.

I really do not think you actually understand the meaning of the word morality, you take the christian teaching of the meaning as in so many other words that christianity bastardises and not the actual meaning. The christian tilt of the word is hacked and twisted to suite the christian believe that everything else is wrong. However all that means is that you understand the hacked and twisted.

Here let me help you
Morality
1 - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
2 - Behaviour as it is affected by the observation of these principles.
Observe that there is no god involved

The atheist moral code is probably far more moral than your own simply because they have no god crutch to lay the blame on when it all goes titsup. You also need to remember that morality is a human concept (that is shared with some other animals) and was around and refined many thousands of years before christianity existed. Without that morality then it is relatively certain that civilisation and hence the various offshoots of religion not would exist, certainly not in the way we understand civilisation today.

We have been here before and you seem to have ignored it, I wonder why that is? There is no evidence that Stalin was atheist other than made up christian hype (sloping shudders in other words). His upbringing and later actions indicated that far from being atheist he was a strong believer and proponent of christianity

Mao was raised Buddhist with a totally different theology than you bow down to, You could no more understand his actions than you could hear the colour of smell. However in both cases there aims were nationalistic, not religious (or anti religious) yet it is the lot of the christian to lie in order to justify their mythology.

Why do you make irrelevant statements? Of course someone who does not believe in your god can feel responsibility, the big difference is that they have not got your god sitting on their shoulder so they have to accept responsibility for themselves. I have no god and I can guarantee that I am at least as moral as you,(looking at the hatred you vomit to others not of your mindset then undoubtedly more so). I hold more responsibility than you could even consider.

More BS?
First atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Second, maybe you need to actually study the meaning of the word religion, it seems to be yet another word that you donít understand, still I donít suppose you can be held responsible for your deliberate ignorance, after all you are only christian..

Third what puts you under the impression that an atheist paedophile is any less responsible for his actions than a christian paedophile, this sound to me like fear based on ignorance.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#58 Sep 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What derail? His reasons for defending mild pedophilia are exactly the same as his reasons for defending same sex marriage.
As in many threads you infest and open you mouth only to see crap issuing fourth you have no frigging comprehension of his reasons for either.

But hey, it must be so easy to make blind assumptions to back up your irrelevant guesswork eh?

Tell me do you consider that he was married to someone of the same sex when he was a child?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#59 Sep 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Which makes me far more moral than you.
And whaddya mean, "finally"? I've explained this to you dozens of times.
As uisual, you're dodging. We're not arguing about who is more moral. I'm challenging you to give me your OBJECTIVE basis for morality.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#60 Sep 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Third what puts you under the impression that an atheist paedophile is any less responsible for his actions than a christian paedophile, this sound to me like fear based on ignorance.
Both are responsible for their actions.
According to ToE, man is defined by his genetics and environment... no spiritual dimension exists...right?
Do you have any control over your genetics and environment?
No.
Therefore, whoever you are and whatever you do are dictated by factors beyond your control. This is why Provine stated that man has no free will. A lot of evolutionists such as Dawkins believe that, although their lives are a contradiction.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min Aura Mytha 174,068
News Intelligent design 26 min Critical Eye 25
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 51 min Critical Eye 20,904
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 14 hr ChromiuMan 143,949
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Thu Igor Trip 178,702
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Sep 2 macumazahn 1,248
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Sep 2 karl44 1
More from around the web